They're coming for us ... what will you do?

Great Debates
101

Noah Smith called this: the Trump admin was going to go after US citizens.

Shot: https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1009589583653232640 (Worst case scenario admittedly)

Chaser: https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1031638288090640384
And now for some good news from America’s Finest News Source, the Onion: Political Scientists Reassure Americans That Stripping Minorities Of Citizenship Usually Where Descent Into Fascism Peters Out Brian Snelling: [INDENT] “This is a classic historical trend—an increasingly authoritarian ruler repeatedly demonizes a minority group with false accusations, increases the illegal imprisonment and deportation of members of that minority group who don’t have proper documentation in an effort to get people accustomed to the idea that something about this minority group is inherently criminal, starts essentially just questioning those minorities’ rights to exist at all, and then everything goes back to normal in six months or so. In virtually every fascist regime throughout history, the creation of detention centers for a minority group is simply the first sign that those detention centers are about to go away. So we urge you not to judge the Trump administration for denying citizens passports based on race, as that’s the sign that fascism is about to come to an end.” [/INDENT]

102

Gwyneth Barbara wanted to renew her passport. She was told that this time around her birth certificate wouldn’t be sufficient evidence. She was born in a farmhouse in Leavenworth County, Kansas, the state that she grew up in and resides now. Her father obtained the birth certificate at the local county courthouse.

But to be considered proof of citizenship, the birth certificate would have had to have been issued at an institution or hospital. So no go.

Additional documents requested:
Border crossing or green card of parents: sorry, her parents are native born.
Early religious records: she didn’t have any.
Family Bible: Ah, wah?

She ended up getting her passport after intervention from her Kansas Senator. News

The circle widens.

103

Slightly off-topic, it strikes me at how fair-skinned Syrians are. It could be because of their northern location (compared to other middle eastern countries) or it’s proof of the white nationalist claim: that the 1 million or so white Europeans kidnapped by barbary pirates ended up there as slaves and concubines.

104

Or it could be subjective nonsense.

105

Yeah, the entire Middle East has had people of all ethnicities all over it at least since the days of the Achemenid Empire. Many Iranians, Turks and Moroccans are at least as pale-skinned as the average Syrian. Also, the idea that the comparatively quite small latitude difference could have played a role in making “northern” Syrians fairer than others is kind of peculiar, considering how intermingled local populations in that area always have been.

106

Distance between Damascus and Algiers: 3000 km.
Which is still less than the distance between White nationalists claims and reality.

107

I’m glad I started with a mild one. You won’t believe some of their other claims. :smiley:

108

Of course it sickens me that our country is now run by haters, cheaters and criminals. And it also sickens me that Dopers here defend this despicable Administration.

But in this post I’ll just address failed attempts at simple arithmetic. First, as a thought experiment, imagine a hypothetical democracy where red-haired people’s vote counts double, and green-eyed people’s triple. These features were written into a hypothetical 200-year old document which was popularly approved, so the system is “democratic.”

I think we all know how the system works, so I’m not sure what your contribution is intended to be. RTFirefly simply pointed out what sort of Senators a majority of Americans wanted. This can have useful purpose despite that “the system doesn’t really[sic] work that way.” @ XT — If you had dark hair and dark eyes in the hypothetical and your side lost, can you not imagine wondering what the result would have been if not rigged against you?

Hurricane misses the point AND gets the arithmetic wrong! The point is that the GOP has an advantage in the present system. Much of that advantage is NOT due to GOP perfidy, but I guarantee that those bragging about the system now would be whining were the bias reversed.

Hurricane might be getting his data from a post directed at him in an earlier thread. For those curious about the GOP advantage in the House of Reps, I’ve appended a useful synopsis of that earlier post.

The first line should be read “The Democrats in 2004, with 48.6% of the popular vote (D+R total) won 46.7% of the House seats;” and so on. Note that in 6 out of 7 of the most recent elections, the D’s got a smaller % of the seats than their % of the popular vote. In the 2012 the D’s lost the House despite winning the popular vote. Only in the 2008 landslide that Hurricane cites did the D’s get more seats than their vote %.

The elections of 2012 and 2016 were very close in terms of total votes for D and R. Yet it was the R’s that won large majorities in each case. In English we call this “rigged.” Some of the rigging results from GOP mischief; some is built into a flawed system. Either way, “democracy,” as that word would be interpreted by many or most, is subverted.

The Democrats …
2004 .486 .467
2006 .541 .536
2008 .555 .591
2010 .465 .444
2012 .506 .462
2014 .471 .432
2016 .494 .446

The Republicans …
2004 .514 .533
2006 .459 .464
2008 .445 .409
2010 .535 .556
2012 .494 .538
2014 .529 .568
2016 .506 .554

I’ve replaced Hurricane’s “53%” for 2008 with the more appropriate 55.5%. I don’t know if Hurricane deliberately “spun” the number or just lacks numeracy. I’ll leave it as an exercise why my number is more appropriate.

109

By the time it gets to jailing political opponents it’s too late, that’s the whole point. You stop dangerous policies while they are still nuisances, not after things start falling apart.

Indeed. And I know passport issuance is not an entitled right, and this practice dates back to the late W days and was continued but at a very reduced rate under Obama, but it was for cases when there was a reason to suspect tampering, and is apparently being cranked up now to general cases. Whoever was responsible it reveals an obnoxiously privileged POV that of course hospital-issued records could not be falsified… or worse, that the kind of person born in the farmstead would not be travelling internationally and should stay where they belong anyway – and it raises the concern that this in turn could be used as a precedent for voter-ID or voter registration denial unless you have the “right” proof. It’s non-legislatively redefining birthright citizenship from “born in the US and subject to its jurisdiction” to “born in the US to parents who can be evidenced to be longtime residents and subject to its jurisdiction”.

110

I watched the video. Ms. Barbara struck me as the sort of uppity sardonic woman who votes D. I can hardly blame Trump’s State Dept. for turning her down. My guess is that Senator Moran helped her either (1) because he didn’t interview her in person and missed that she was a likely D; or (2) the R’s are smart enough to understand effort-publicity trade-offs: Many D voters would have given up; a persistent one can cost the R’s much more in bad publicity than a single D vote.

111

Irony aside, reps help with jammed up passport issues all the time. It’s routine constituent service. John Chafee: ‘‘You write Moynihan about a passport and you get a history of the passport office. You write D’Amato about a passport and you get the passport.’’

112

“My” number is Wikipedia’s number:

I didn’t “spin” shit.

113

So you cannot figure out why my number is more appropriate. Did you try? When you went to grade school did you learn “Common Core” math, or some other kind?

114

Must’ve been some other kind, the kind that parents say, “why don’t they teach math the way they did when I was in school?” and then when you ask, you find they hated math and stopped taking math as soon as they could.

115

Anyhow, just to help out HD, the standard benchmark is “share of two-party vote” where the numerator is the D or R vote, and the denominator is the D+R vote. The reason for this is that while the share of the vote earned by minor parties may vary from one election to another, it doesn’t matter in our system, and specifically has no bearing on the division of any legislature between D and R.

116

I’m bumping this thread to politely ask Mr. Ditka to confirm whether or not he finally understands and agrees with Mr. Firefly here. It seems futile to debate things like tax policy before we’ve agreed on principles of arithmetic.

117

“the standard benchmark”?

Why then, pray tell does Wikipedia choose to use a non-standard benchmark in reporting the election results? Is it possible this “standard benchmark”, while certainly one valid way to analyze at election results, is not the only way? Perhaps it’s not quite as “standard” as you two imagine?

118

To avoid further hijack to this GD thread, I’ve addressed your follow-on question in the other thread.

119
You can take these quotes over there too, because they sure as fuck don't belong here.